So I have followed a couple of different trains of thought as a result of the most recent shooting at Umpqua Community College Shooting:

-Oregon allows concealed carry on campus. Why didn't a good guy or guys with a gun stop this?
a. This campus was a declared gun free zone -- obviously didn't stop the shooter.

-A guy with a shoe bomb attempts to blow up a plane and we have ridiculous inspections and TSA in a matter of weeks. We have mass shootings nearly quarterly and do nothing.

-Statistics say that we are above average when it comes to gun violence ... but when you zoom in you realize the were sitting between two 3d world South American countries.
a. Mass shootings don't happen in The UK and Australia every 3 months where they have strict gun control.
b. Mass shootings don't happen in Switzerland or Israel every 3 months. Allowing citizens to own or carry guns may not be the problem.
c. Oregon's gun laws are less restrictive than the national average (the Brady campaign gives them a D+), and yet they are near the bottom (less than half the average) with regards gun violence.

The violence is tragic, constitutional rights are important. I don't entirely agree that gun control is the cure, but some level of more restrictions on some gun ownership may be a valid discussion. At the same time Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and yet they have a big time problem near daily. Gun control only takes guns away from law abiding citizens. One the smartest idea I have heard of is a 'permit to purchase' policy, one example of this is discussed here:

Mental illness seems to the be the common denominator in these shootings but mental illness can be near impossible to check for universally and solving the mental illness reasons and motives in these cases may be nearly impossible to do without overzealous governmental roundup of the "mentally ill" or some other definition, which would likely be unenforceable and unconstitutional.

The U.S. is an open society, with more freedoms than any other country in the world. Open societies have challenges for which we must accept some of the badness with all the goodness.

garhkal

10-03-2015, 06:22 AM

You also need to look at the fact most of these mass shootings were carried out with legally purchased guns. Whether they were illegally taken from their rightful owner (such as in the red lake massacre, or Colorado theater shooting) or not, they were purchased after getting vetted.. Though HAD those doing the vetting been given access to medical records, some would have at least potentially been prevented (such as VT).

Rainmaker

10-03-2015, 02:27 PM

Everytime one of these mass shootings happens, the first thing this POTUS does is to get on and start pontificating about how we law abiding citizens just need to hand over more of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. "For the sake of our children"

Well, we had guns everywhere when I was a kid. Back in the 80s During Deer season, the parking lot at Fort Hill High School was full of them.

Yet, Somehow, amazingly no one ever decided to SHOOT UP THE F_ _ _KING SCHOOL!!!

My 2 cents is that, Something Much deeper is contributing to this (it never gets mentioned by the liberal gun grabber in chief).

Wonder what kind of prescription pharmaceuticals was this depressed wacko on?

Wonder what kind of relationship he had with his "Dad" that was living in another state with his new and improved family?

Now, If you believe CNN, This Black-Aryan, Conservative-Atheist was asking the victims to state their religion before he executed them.

Well, The primary religion in this country today is worshiping the TV set.

Violence and dysfunction is glorified in Satanic Hollywood.

Rainmaker got rid of the boob tube 10 years ago Because, he could no longer watch a Goddamn family show with his 5 year old daughter without a TV timeout every 3 minutes showing some random act of murder or perversion popping up (with no warning) in front of her innocent eyes,

These Video games are even worse. And What kind of videos are these 11 year olds we see walking around with their noses stuck in the idot phones all day watching?

None of these things individually may be the cause. But, when you expose the developing mind to this garbage there could be consequences.

Take a fragile soul (like this loon), feed him full of mind altering SSRI's, Get him Pissed off (cause he can't get a date or a decent job).

Well, It may not be a real big leap for them to snap. NomSayin Commander?

garhkal

10-03-2015, 08:53 PM

You also need to look at the facts.
Dylan and Klybold got their guns via their parents legally or purchased them, themselves.
Jeffery Weiss (Redlake massacre), got his guns after killing his grandfather, who WAS A COP and legally owned the guns.
Cho (Virgina tech) even AFTER getting diagnozed as mental, was still allowed to legally get a gun as he was never institutionalized.
Adam Lanza (Sandy hook) got his guns from his Grandmother, who legally owned them.

Then you add to those school shootings the others, such as The colorado theatre massacre shooter, who had HIS guns legally..

Adding to that..
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Seems there is more of a problem with Democrats and guns, than guns themselves.

And lastly, has ANYONE seen obama on the TV, denouncing guns after ANY Of the bloody weekends of shootings in Chicago or elsewhere??

UncaRastus

10-03-2015, 11:03 PM

Myself, I do believe that some of those of us who are diagnosed with PTSD, should have a cooling off period while undergoing treatment, and for a short time afterward, to not buy weapons.

Why? Because some veterans end up gaining an explosive temper, due to PTSD.

So I do think that they should be treated, and a period of time should go by, to see if the treatment works, for those guys.

Someone with major depression?

Nope. They don't need guns.

Psychotic people? Nope.

Schizoid type people? No no NO!

People with anger issues? Ummm, no.

The vast amount of citizens of the USA that are not felons and have not been psychologically or psychiatrically treated for a lifelong illness?

Not a problem, as long as they are of age to carry such firearms that are age limited.

Would it be so hard to buy a gun safe, or a trigger lock?

For quite some time now, I have been going to a large residential type place, a home with nurses, for the psychiatrically treated people that live around here, to give yoga classes to the patients that live there. There has been a change in most of the residents, because in almost all of the cases, they are sooner or later shipped off to much stricter places.

Why? Because they refuse to take their medications. They get violent with each other. They get violent with themselves. They get violent with the staff.

Three people over the past 8 years, since I have been going there, have went to live on their own, or with parents. They still need psychiatric treatment and the drugs that they are still treated with. They are in no way healed of their mental problems. They have found a way to cope with the demons in their heads, mostly. Mostly.

They are not allowed to buy rifles, shotguns, or pistols. Period.

We, in the MTF World, are all adults that cope with stuff. Psychiatric patients need help. A lot of help, in a lot of cases. They need drugs.

I am not talking about short time depression. I can honestly say that I do believe we've all had that. Breakup with a girlfriend. Divorce. That sort of thing. We got out of our funk. What I am talking about in here are those whom are likely never to regain a well balanced life/mind, no matter what is done with them.

The above consists of my opinions, when it comes to gun control. I have seen so many people go off their meds, because they thought that they were cured. They weren't cured. They were medically controlled, until they went off of their meds.

There are a few more psychiatric illnesses that should be closely watched also, but I think that this post is long enough, as is.

Since the question might arise in some of your minds, yes. I have, on occasion, had to deal with violent people in the abovementioned place that I spoke about. I have never done more that than to make them incapable of being violent with anyone else, including me, until the staff appeared with restraining devices. And nice hypos full of nighty night time.

After being a DI with the Marines, I went Navy, and became a Corpsman, with the Marines. Since I retired, I learned yoga, and went to an ashram to become certified to teach yoga.

Sometimes, while teaching peace in the above mentioned place, I do have to go back to my time with the USMC, to bring about instant peace. Not a bad background to be grounded in, I would say.

I am quite sure that some of you might believe in everyone having as many guns as they want. Some of you probably believe that no one other than cops, other law enforcement agencies, and the military should have them.

What are your thoughts? Too much gun control? Not enough? Just right amount?

Mjölnir

10-04-2015, 01:41 AM

It is important to note that mass killings are not really new. There have been incidents of mass killings in the U.S. back into the 1800’s. School shootings (both by adults and juveniles go back just as far.) What is not really arguable is that the frequency of the incidents is increasing. Since 2000 the frequency is growing exponentially to nearly every other week.

Conspiracy theories aside, mental health seems to be a common issue in these incidents. Is this an indicator of increased mental health issues with youth in the U.S. in the last 15 years … is this an indicator of easier access to firearms by mentally unstable youth … is this a combination of the two? The vast majority of these shooters are white, male youth … why? Are they more prone to mass violence than another demographic? The vast majority of overall gun violence is committed by black-male inner city youth. Why? The United States has an incredibly high per capita murder rate, removing 4 major cities from the statistics drops the U.S. to 44th – who runs those cities? What are the laws there? Who commits the crimes there? Why is it the way it is?

I complete agree with Rainmaker, in many cases it seems that the erosion of ‘family’ is a common denominator. Is there correlation between a broken home or poor parenting of a child that leads them to become a mass shooter? At the same time for every kid that comes from a broken home and becomes a mass shooter, there are literally thousands that do not. Why?

As garhkal points out, most of the weapons used in these shoots are legally owned weapons that are later used for illegal activity. In the simplest comparison, the gun is a tool whose function is to kill. Guns can be used as a deterrent to criminal activity, because ... again ... the gun is a tool to kill. I don’t think that mentally unstable people using guns for mass shootings more a problem for Democrats though … trying to make it about political affiliation is a deflection of the issue at the heart of it all … mental health. There are mentally unstable R’s and D’s and as far as the President on TV denouncing gun violence in Chicago, he mentioned it again in his statement yesterday on the OR shooting. I am not saying he doesn’t use each shooting to make a point on gun control (he does) … but to say he ignores gun violence in his hometown is inaccurate and is an effort to politicize the issue, which doesn’t solve the issue. Nothing will change until social and moral momentum on the issue outweighs the politics and political will to do nothing.

What the availability of legal firearms in the U.S. does (unfortunately) allow is for a mentally unstable individual who may in a moment of rage injure or kill one or two people to become a killing machine heaping violence on largely unarmed crowds of people – the firearm magnifies the ability of the attacker to do harm before they can be neutralized. I am not against gun ownership but have concerns about guns (legally owned or illegally owned) in the hands of mentally unstable people. I do have an issue with a private citizen who thinks they ‘need’ a .50 cal machine gun for home defense. Legislation that limits the size of magazines does nothing to prevent a shooting, they just mean the shooter has to reload; which takes no time when shooting a group of unarmed people.

Questions:

Is it really the presence of guns that leads folks to do these mass killings?

Are they just random acts of violence that would be limited if the ability to access weapons were more difficult?

Even so ... is that the path we should take? Just keep removing all dangerous things in society (even though they may have other uses) in order to treat a symptom while ignoring the disease?

Myself, I do believe that some of those of us who are diagnosed with PTSD, should have a cooling off period while undergoing treatment, and for a short time afterward, to not buy weapons.

Why? Because some veterans end up gaining an explosive temper, due to PTSD.

So I do think that they should be treated, and a period of time should go by, to see if the treatment works, for those guys.

Someone with major depression?

Nope. They don't need guns.

Psychotic people? Nope.

Schizoid type people? No no NO!

People with anger issues? Ummm, no.

I fully agree. Mental patients shouldn't be armed. BUT with our current laws, only those who get Committed, get put in system to block their access. Someone diagnosed and takes meds, or someone the courts say is mental, but is not booked into an asylum, still can get them legally as their is no tracker for them.

As @garhkal points out, most of the weapons used in these shoots are legally owned weapons that are later used for illegal activity. In the simplest comparison, the gun is a tool whose function is to kill. Guns can be used as a deterrent to criminal activity, because ... again ... the gun is a tool to kill. I don’t think that mentally unstable people using guns for mass shootings more a problem for Democrats though … trying to make it about political affiliation is a deflection of the issue at the heart of it all … mental health.

But MJ.. Which group R's or D's have done more to enable more and more Mental patients to be out on the street?
That said, i DO agree, we need to address the underlying issues (mental, societal etc) rather than just keep harping on guns.

Bos Mutus

10-05-2015, 03:46 PM

I fully agree. Mental patients shouldn't be armed. BUT with our current laws, only those who get Committed, get put in system to block their access. Someone diagnosed and takes meds, or someone the courts say is mental, but is not booked into an asylum, still can get them legally as their is no tracker for them.

Every time there is a mass shooting...conservatives want to take guns away from the thousands of innocent mental health patients who didn't shoot anyone.

You know what else is a common denominator? White males...almost all of these are done by white males...may be we should just keep guns away from white males

But MJ.. Which group R's or D's have done more to enable more and more Mental patients to be out on the street?
That said, i DO agree, we need to address the underlying issues (mental, societal etc) rather than just keep harping on guns.

...so, what is your solution here? lock up the mental patients that didn't shoot anyone?

Rainmaker

10-05-2015, 07:10 PM

...almost all of these are done by white males...may be we should just keep guns away from white males

The profile of the typical gun violence perp is a black male, under the age of 25, gang-banger, living in an inner city with strict gun control laws enacted by Progressive Imbeciles.

Blacks are seven times as likely to commit a homicide as whites

If you remove only this one demographic (black males under 25) from the statistics, then the US would have approximately the same murder rate as Belgium.

Absinthe Anecdote

10-05-2015, 07:11 PM

Every time there is a mass shooting...conservatives want to take guns away from the thousands of innocent mental health patients who didn't shoot anyone.

Right, and since guns don't kill people there should be no problem with a program to issue guns to all mental patients.

If every mental patient has a gun, then the good mental patients will be able to quickly intervene when a bad mental patient starts shooting.

You know what else is a common denominator? White males...almost all of these are done by white males...may be we should just keep guns away from white males

I was thinking of a geographic solution. Abolish all schools in favor of home schooling or distance learning.

We don't need theaters either, people can download movies.

Why would anyone want to go to a theater anyway?

Theaters are gun-free zones, and everyone knows that gun-free zones are the real problem.

Gun-free zones are dangerous!

I never feel safe sitting in a big room with a bunch of unarmed people.

I'd feel much safer knowing that everyone is armed and potentially dangerous.

...so, what is your solution here? lock up the mental patients that didn't shoot anyone?

Yes, but it is important that you give each patient a gun when you lock them up. That way, they can help the guards keep peace inside the mental hospital.